Kerry Mayes wrote:
On 13/01/07, Rik Tindall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> Parent: "bedtime now"
>> >>> Child: "thats gay"
In other words: "no, i needn't respect you"
Rather: "I don't like that." (Since when has a child expressing their
preferences, necessarily been disrespectful?)
= a negative.
As stated, "no argument" between all three of our readings actually.
'Gay' = happy = positive
Except that use sounds naff, so who cares how it's morphed? Not me.
Says he who is willing to believe petrol-breathing, functional
illiterates.
Who's being disrespectful now? My sources include my children and
niece, none of whom are petrol-breathing, nor illiterate.
Trace upwards the chain of useage, the chain of youngster's respect, for
the behavioural modelling source, is what I meant. The word did not come
from you.
But you're right, 'youth of today' is due equal respect.
> - yes, 'gay' (in this context) has been
> negativised, but it has also lost all association with homosexuality.
Maybe.
Except, of course, in the mind of the hearer. The illogic quote:
"When I use a word, it means exactly what I intend it to mean, no
more, no less."
— Humpty Dumpty to Alice, Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll
When words are redefined, the failure in communication is the fault of
both sides.
In the (teen) movie I cited, the only possibly neutral use of 'gay' was
the first use appearing. Thereafter the _older_kids_ (adult stars) flew
off on a sojourning tangent where there was no question that their
hetero status was being defended against the former meaning.
Kerry.
But me senses semantic contest here. Not so sure that it's useful.
Good chatting with you tho.
Cheers
--
Rik
